4 ms·

Exactly, the cited passage goes on: The magnitude and scope of the disaster, the size of the affected population, and the long-term consequences make it, by fa

by morsch 10y ago

Exactly, the cited passage goes on: The magnitude and scope of the disaster, the size of the affected population, and the long-term consequences make it, by far, the worst industrial disaster on record. Chernobyl unleashed a complex web of events and long-term difficulties, such as massive relocation, loss of economic stability, and long-term threatds to health in current and, possibly, future generations, that resulted in an increased sense of anomie and diminished sense of physical and emotional balance.

vidarh 10y ago
You'll note that a large proportion of these are due to the evacuation, and we do not know how much of that was necessary. In terms of directly attributable health effects, including deaths, it's nowhere near the worst industrial disaster on record. It's a curious claim. We'll likely never know whether that was due to the evacuation or simply that the risk were overstated. E.g. consider the Bhopal disaster [1] for comparison - 2259 official immediate deaths in Bhopal vs. 56, and nearly 4000 confirmed dead due to the disaster and 16k+ estimated total deaths, vs. a WHO estimate of 4000 eventual shortened lifespans after Chernobyl (e.g. people whose life expectancy over a period of decades is shortened due to increased cancer risks). Bhopal further caused an estimated 558,000 injuries. For comparison, the Chernobyl exclusion zone used to be home to 120,000 people. Far more people were actually harmed in Bhopal than even lived near Chernobyl. Chernobyl is only worse than Bhopal on a single measure: It will take longer before the area is fully safe to use again (but much shorter than people initially thought - as mentioned elsewhere, there is already pressure to open it up to more activity, as background radiation is already down to relatively safe levels). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
- mpweiher 10y ago
  > You'll note that a large proportion of these are due to the evacuation, and we do not know how much of that was necessary. Exactly. The biggest (general-population) health effect was almost certainly overreaction.
  - morsch 10y ago
    You may claim that, but please stop pretending that the section of the report you refer to does the same.
    - mpweiher 10y ago
      "Expert Assessment Consensus The mental health impact of Chernobyl is the largest public health problem caused by the accident to date" -- Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident, page 95, World Health Organization [1] That's the direct quote. But you can continue to pretend/imagine that it says what you want it to say.
      - Retric 10y ago
        That quote does not support your argument. A little above that on page iii it mentions how the mass evacuations, iodine pills, and cleanup effort saved many lives across millions impacted. You can't save someone's life unless they where first put at risk. So, there where clearly problems now you can talk about the largest outstanding problem after mitigation, but that's different.
        mpweiher 10y ago
        > unless they where first put at risk. Who said that there had been no risk? > there where clearly problems Who said there were no problems? I don't see how people turn "A is greater than B" into "B is zero". If I had written "there was obviously no risk at all from radiation" you might have a point, I but I did not write that and would never write that, because it is clearly ridiculous.
        Retric 10y ago
        Nothing I said suggested zero anywhere. I have said you can't measure 'with intervention' vs 'without intervention' by only looking at the with intervention outcome. Thus, to support your argument you need to demonstrate what the harm would have been vs what it is.
- Retric 10y ago
  People far outside of the exclusion zone where harmed, though generally in minor ways. Further, the improvements in cancer treatment have reduced the number of deaths expected which makes analysis even more difficult. However, a larger consideration is the economic damage from Chernobyl caused a even more indirect harm. Now, some of this was arguably an overreaction. But again, the cleanup effort is a large part of why the direct harm has been so small. Without that it's a very different situation.

by morsch 10y ago

vidarh 10y ago

You'll note that a large proportion of these are due to the evacuation, and we do not know how much of that was necessary. In terms of directly attributable health effects, including deaths, it's nowhere near the worst industrial disaster on record. It's a curious claim. We'll likely never know whether that was due to the evacuation or simply that the risk were overstated. E.g. consider the Bhopal disaster [1] for comparison - 2259 official immediate deaths in Bhopal vs. 56, and nearly 4000 confirmed dead due to the disaster and 16k+ estimated total deaths, vs. a WHO estimate of 4000 eventual shortened lifespans after Chernobyl (e.g. people whose life expectancy over a period of decades is shortened due to increased cancer risks). Bhopal further caused an estimated 558,000 injuries. For comparison, the Chernobyl exclusion zone used to be home to 120,000 people. Far more people were actually harmed in Bhopal than even lived near Chernobyl. Chernobyl is only worse than Bhopal on a single measure: It will take longer before the area is fully safe to use again (but much shorter than people initially thought - as mentioned elsewhere, there is already pressure to open it up to more activity, as background radiation is already down to relatively safe levels). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

mpweiher 10y ago
> You'll note that a large proportion of these are due to the evacuation, and we do not know how much of that was necessary. Exactly. The biggest (general-population) health effect was almost certainly overreaction.
- morsch 10y ago
  You may claim that, but please stop pretending that the section of the report you refer to does the same.
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    "Expert Assessment Consensus The mental health impact of Chernobyl is the largest public health problem caused by the accident to date" -- Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident, page 95, World Health Organization [1] That's the direct quote. But you can continue to pretend/imagine that it says what you want it to say.
    - Retric 10y ago
      That quote does not support your argument. A little above that on page iii it mentions how the mass evacuations, iodine pills, and cleanup effort saved many lives across millions impacted. You can't save someone's life unless they where first put at risk. So, there where clearly problems now you can talk about the largest outstanding problem after mitigation, but that's different.
      - mpweiher 10y ago
        > unless they where first put at risk. Who said that there had been no risk? > there where clearly problems Who said there were no problems? I don't see how people turn "A is greater than B" into "B is zero". If I had written "there was obviously no risk at all from radiation" you might have a point, I but I did not write that and would never write that, because it is clearly ridiculous.
        Retric 10y ago
        Nothing I said suggested zero anywhere. I have said you can't measure 'with intervention' vs 'without intervention' by only looking at the with intervention outcome. Thus, to support your argument you need to demonstrate what the harm would have been vs what it is.
Retric 10y ago
People far outside of the exclusion zone where harmed, though generally in minor ways. Further, the improvements in cancer treatment have reduced the number of deaths expected which makes analysis even more difficult. However, a larger consideration is the economic damage from Chernobyl caused a even more indirect harm. Now, some of this was arguably an overreaction. But again, the cleanup effort is a large part of why the direct harm has been so small. Without that it's a very different situation.